How Dare the Pope!

Having danced around the issue last week, the time has come for me to say clearly what I feel about the role of religion in the current political campaign. My fundamental orientation is as a Christian pastor and teacher. My political understanding, which is detailed in many of these weekly columns, is an effort to talk about the ethic which flows from what I hold to be Christian substance. I attempt in these columns to describe my religious convictions in a language I call “secularese,” a translation addressed to those for whom my ‘”religionese” may be problematic.

Dressed as he is, with all the ceremony and institutional structure surrounding him, the Pope finds it difficult to be bilingual. So everything he says is seen as only religious. When he says that anyone who builds walls instead of bridges is not a Christian, it comes off as doctrine being recited by the head of the world’s largest Christian community. Yet he may only be applying the Christian ethic to the secular world. In doing so he is just being honest about how he sees society, through the eyes of his religion.

He understands that to build walls, not bridges, is the opposite of an authentic understanding of what Jesus believed and taught. The same holds for those who would solve the most difficult human problems by war, killing, carpet-bombing, torture, capital punishment, the raping of the natural world, bigotry and economic inequity.
Perhaps it is stepping over the line to call anyone committed to those positions as not a Christian. However, to say that certain political positions are not Christian is entirely appropriate.

So let me be clear. Much of what we have heard from Trump, Cruz and Rubio I believe is contrary to the Christian ethic. Both they, and those who support them, need to stop pretending that they are the only ones who are righteous.

Nevertheless, these three continue to lust after so-called Christian votes, particularly in states where there is a significant number of evangelicals. As the campaign is moving into the South, which is dominated by these religious constituencies, the scramble for their support becomes all the more noticeable.

But this is not a new political tactic. One of Trump’s first major speeches was given atLiberty University where he was praised by its President, Jerry Falwell, Jr. Other Christian fundamentalists including James Dobson and Tony Perkins have been lavish in their support of Cruz. Rubio has tried, but has a harder time wooing the evangelical elite.

How is it that evangelicals swarm in support of these candidates? Does what they really stand for make any difference, even if their announced policies are contrary to what many of us see to be the essence of Jesus’ affirmations? A recent survey suggests that evangelicals understand Christian ethics as limited to abortion and gay marriage—two issues about which Jesus had nothing to say. Do these evangelicals really support capital punishment, the torture of suspected enemies, dismissal of refugees, walls instead of bridges, carpet bombing, super-nationalism, military might as the answer to the world’s troubles, economic inequality, prosperity for the few, etc, etc, etc. Are these positions espoused by these political figures really what evangelicals hold to be the substance of what Jesus taught, how he imaged what God’s reign would look like if it came to earth?

It is no wonder that young adults by the millions when asked what is their religious tradition answer, “none,” and millions of older former members of Christian institutions are now numbered among the “no longers.” Much of the Christian institution has been hijacked by evangelicals who have substituted a right-wing political agenda for what Jesus had to say and how he called his followers to live. In turn these evangelicals have been hijacked by politicians whose policies may be the very opposite of what Jesus held to be true.

The Pope sees the heart of the Christian message much differently, and is increasingly clear about it wherever he goes and whatever he has to say. And I can only agree with him.